On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 10:22 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 3 Nov 2020, at 10:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Applied, with the small adjustment of the comma in the docs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > I wonder if we should perhaps backpatch 0002? The changes to sslinfo
> > that were ported go all the
> On 3 Nov 2020, at 10:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Applied, with the small adjustment of the comma in the docs.
Thanks!
> I wonder if we should perhaps backpatch 0002? The changes to sslinfo
> that were ported go all the way back to 9.6, so it should be a safe
> one I think?
It should be safe
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:19 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:20 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >
> > > On 30 Oct 2020, at 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > There's quite a few copies of this code that look exactly the same,
> > > except for the be_tls_get_* call. Do yo
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:20 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 30 Oct 2020, at 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > There's quite a few copies of this code that look exactly the same,
> > except for the be_tls_get_* call. Do you see a way to have fewer copies
> > of the same code?
>
> There's re
> On 30 Oct 2020, at 00:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's quite a few copies of this code that look exactly the same,
> except for the be_tls_get_* call. Do you see a way to have fewer copies
> of the same code?
There's really only two of the same, and two sets of those. I tried some
variation
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 04:40:32PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's quite a few copies of this code that look exactly the same,
> except for the be_tls_get_* call. Do you see a way to have fewer copies
> of the same code?
Each one of those code paths is working on a different sub-API aiming
a
Hi,
Thanks for extracting these.
On 2020-10-29 23:48:57 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:>
> /*
> @@ -54,9 +53,16 @@ PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(ssl_version);
> Datum
> ssl_version(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> {
> - if (MyProcPort->ssl == NULL)
> + const char *version;
> +
> + if (!MyProcPort->ssl
While hacking on the NSS patch I realized that sslinfo was passing the ->ssl
Port member directly to OpenSSL in order to extract information regarding the
connection. This breaks the API provided by the backend, as well as duplicates
code for no real benefit. The attached 0001 patch rewrites ssli
